Slashdot Mirror
FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015
blottsie writes: The Federal Communications Commission will abandon its earlier promise to make a decision on new net neutrality rules this year. Instead, FCC Press Secretary Kim Hart said, "there will not be a vote on open internet rules on the December meeting agenda. That would mean rules would now be finalized in 2015." The FCC's confirmation of the delay came just as President Barack Obama launched a campaign to persuade the agency to reclassify broadband Internet service as a public utility.
Opensource.com is also running an interview with a legal advisor at the FCC. He says, "There will be a burden on providers. The question is, 'Is that burden justified?' And I think our answer is 'Yes.'"
Why should the providers shoulder this burden?
Because their customers are paying them to shoulder this burden. Directly. With real money. These paying consumers expect their bytes to be relayed at the rate and volume they pay to send or receive. Whatever other business arrangements a providers customers may have with any other party is none of the providers @$%&*+! business.
Simple. Straightforward. And entirely incompatible with our government's monopoly protected cable and phone companies that have decided they'd like a big juicy piece for themselves.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I was referencing to the very real possibility that while a law may not be passed to disband the fcc, they may zero it's budget which is effectively the same to prevent any sort of net neutrality. utility or otherwise.
Pure fantasy.
The FCC is under pressure from EVERYBODY to reclassify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. And the reason is simple: it is what should have been done in the very beginning.
It is the obvious and RIGHT thing to do, and so much is clear to just about everyone. Even the ISPs know that, they just don't want it to happen.
The GOP really, really, really needs to get it through their heads that their ideology is NOT why they were overwhelmingly elected this year. In fact that had little if anything to do with it. What the voters did was throw the other bums out. If the new Congress behaves badly, it will just be their turn in 2016.
Seriously. People are fed up. And it's Obama's guy, Wheeler, who has been pushing for Internet "Slow Lanes" on behalf of the ISPs. So no matter Obama's rhetoric, no matter how many things Ted Cruz idiotically blurts, you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame. Not the GOP.
Why should the providers shoulder this burden? They're not marketing, charging for, or making the content available. It's ridiculous. And invasive.
Nonsense. The reason they should "shoulder the burden" is that you already paid them to do so via your monthly bill. And instead of investing in improved infrastructure to carry the extra bits, as has been done in other civilized countries, in the U.S. they've just been pocketing the money and taking vacations in Jamaica.
Seriously. U.S. has worse speed AND higher prices than most of the Western world, including pretty much all of Europe.
I pay for bandwidth. It doesn't (should not) matter where that bandwidth comes from. And the suppliers of the content, on the other end, should not have to be forced to pay AGAIN for bandwidth I already paid for.
Not to mention that the proper role of ISPs is as carriers anyway, which means they should be content-neutral.
Imagine if they were old land-line telephone companies (as they should be): if you called Aunt Martha, and she talked a lot, you still paid the phone bill for that call. It didn't matter if she talked for hours, or how fast she talked, you still paid the bill. Further, if people were calling your teenage daughter all damned day because she was popular and spent all damned day on the telephone, as many teenagers did, should SHE have to pay just because she was popular, and talked a lot? No. The people who called HER paid the bill for the calls.
There is not one single legitimate reason why ISPs in the U.S. should get to double-dip for their services, when they already aren't delivering good service for the money anyway.
Net neutrality isn't necessarily what people want, but its the closest thing to what people want that they can get right now in the US.
Think about it. If we had actual competition, and I could go and pick from one of 10 ISPs...none of them would dare, let say, throttle netflix, as they would basically bankrupt themselves. Prices would go down, services would go up (you may have a package that gives videostreaming priority...which is not net neutral, but if its a CHOICE, and you can go to the competitor that gives gaming traffic priority...it may not be a bad thing for you as a customer. Sucks a bit for providers, but still).
The problem is we don't have that. If you're on Comcast, and they throttle netflix, and you want netflix, well, TOUGH. Yay, Netflix makes a deal, and thats cool..but I want Crunchyroll and Funimation. Well, too bad. Its netflix or eat up the throttling! Net neutrality helps that, but it still doesn't give me choice.